both? Pretty soon after the last search, gold pieces were actually found
near Mr. pearson's house, in the manner stated by the female witness. How
came they there? Did the robber deposit them there? That is not possible.
Did he accidentally leave them there? Why should not a robber take as good
care of his money as others? It is certain, too, that the gold pieces were
not put there at the time of the robbery, because the ground was then
bare; but when these pieces were found, there were several inches of snow
below them. When Goodridge searched here with his conjuror, he was on this
spot, alone and unobserved, as he thought. Whether he did not, at that
time, drop his gold into the snow, the jury will judge. When he came to
this search, he proposed something very ridiculous. He proposed that all
persons about to assist in the search should be examined, to see that they
had nothing which they could put into Pearson's possession, for the
purpose of being found there. But how was this examination to be made?
Why, truly, Goodridge proposed that every man should examine himself, and
that, among others, he would examine himself, till he was satisfied he had
nothing in his pockets which he could leave at pearson's, with the
fraudulent design of being afterwards found there, as evidence against
pearson. What construction would be given to such conduct?

As to Jackman, Goodridge went to New York and arrested him. In his room he
says he found paper coverings of gold, with his own figures on them, and
pieces of an old and useless receipt, which he can identify, and which he
had in his possession at the time of the robbery. He found these things
lying on the floor in Jackman's room. What should induce the robbers, when
they left all other papers, to take this receipt? And what should induce
Jackman to carry it to New York, and keep it, with the coverings of the
gold, in a situation where it was likely to be found, and used as evidence
against him?